Talk:Common vampire bat/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Stemonitis (talk • contribs • count) 07:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read the article in detail yet, but a few problems leap out at me. Some of these are obvious but not significant, while others will take rather more work.

~~The genus shouldn't be in boldface in the taxobox, and you shouldn't link to the year in the authority.~~
~~Pest, linked to in the lead, is a disambiguation page.~~
A few parts of the text are without references. I'm assuming that some references are for the preceding several sentences, but the last two sentences of Physical description are without references, as is Relationship with humans from "Although one should not have an unreasonable fear..." onwards, for instance.
~~Some units could do with conversions, which also ensures proper formatting – the "130m" in Physical description, for instance, and the "175 miles" in Range and habitat.~~
The references contain several bare URLs, as do the external links. The use of templates like {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and so on is not required for a GA pass, but is extremely useful for ensuring the various references are formatted the same and in accordance with the Manual of Style.
The IUCN link is under External links, even though it is presumably the reference for the conservation status in the taxobox; the conservation status should also be mentioned in the text, presumably in the Relationship with humans section.

Once these initial problems are dealt with, I will return for a more detailed reading, focussing more on the content and the writing. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not mention taxonomy at all. There are in fact several other species of Desmodus known from the (very) recent past, such as Desmodus draculae and Desmodus puntajudensis. I'll leave it to Stemonitis to decide whether that means the article is not "broad in its coverage". Ucucha (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just tried to read the article in more detail, and didn't get far before having to stop, I'm afraid. The whole thing appears to need considerable proof-reading. Please read it through carefully, or ask someone from the Guild of Copy Editors to have a look. For instance, the first three sentences include:

"backside" where presumably "back" is meant ("backside" means "buttocks"),
a missing verb ("They a well-developed clawed thumb..."),
and a lack of verb agreement ("thumb [...] are use[d] to climb on prey").

At the moment, therefore, this article fails criterion 1 of WP:WIAGA. Aside from issues of grammar and spelling (note that "[o]estrous" is an adjective, while "[o]estrus" is the noun – that won't be picked up by spell checkers), the tone seems a little informal for an encyclopaedia in places, and there are still facts that require citation which have none (detecting 0.5 mm wires, or only 0.5% of bats carrying rabies, for example). Ucucha is also right to point out that the species needs to be better placed in its taxonomic and systematic context. Who described it, and when? How does it differ from related species? Its relatives are mentioned in the lead, but not thereafter. I would also like to see more about its ecology, but if its ecological range really is that broad, I understand there may be little we can say. When the prose is fixed, and the taxonomy described, we must also work on re-writing the lead as an accurate summary of the article, but I would leave that task until last. --Stemonitis (talk) 10:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The I withdraw my nomination. LittleJerry (talk) 00:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's necessary. There's a lot of good material, and most of the work towards producing a Good Article has already been done. I just think it will take a bit more before it's ready. I really think that some assistance from WP:GCE would improve it a lot, and from there, it's only a couple of paragraphs away from being passed. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]